Mr President, distinguished parliamentarians, ambassadors,
ladies and gentlemen, it is with strong personal feelings that I
address you today, as the President of the Republic of Turkey. I
was an active member of the Assembly for nine years. The last time
I spoke from this rostrum was nearly five years ago, as the prime
minister of a newly elected government. During the last four years,
I have represented my country at the Committee of Ministers as the
Minister for Foreign Affairs. I gained great experience and had
valuable inspiration from my long association with the Council of
Europe. Therefore, coming back to this Assembly today is not merely
a pleasant occasion to meet many old friends. It is also a deeply
emotional moment.

I warmly thank my old friend, President van der Linden for
inviting me to the Assembly again. I pay tribute to you, Mr President,
for all that you have done to raise the profile and visibility of
this Assembly during your tenure. Under your able leadership, the
Assembly’s role as a pan-European forum for debate and discussion has
been strengthened. The debates you organised on current issues like
intercultural and inter-religious dialogue, and the state of human
rights and democracy in Europe, testify to the contribution of this
Assembly to the European debate.

Mr President, when I addressed the Assembly in January 2003,
I outlined the ambitious reform agenda adopted by the Turkish Government
and supported by the Turkish Parliament elected in the November
2002 elections. It was an agenda that embodied Turkey’s strong commitments
to achieve the highest standards of democracy, the rule of law and
human rights. Today, I am proud to say that Turkey has lived up
to the expectations it generated by fulfilling the commitments undertaken.

First and foremost among them has been human rights policy.
One pillar of this policy has been assuming new obligations by becoming
party to core international instruments on fundamental rights and
freedoms. I am pleased to inform you that Turkey is now party to
all of the seven principal international human rights treaties of
the United Nations. Turkey is also party to a large number of Council
of Europe conventions and protocols, including Protocols Nos. 6
and 13, abolishing the death penalty in all circumstances.

The second pillar of Turkey’s policy has been legislative
reform. In this field, our progress has been significant. Existing
laws and regulations have been revised in the light of our international
and European commitments. The case law of the European Court of
Human Rights and the recommendations of the international monitoring mechanisms
have been taken on board. Nine legislative packages and substantial
constitutional amendments have been passed by our parliament. Amendments
on the Political Parties Law and the Anti-Terror Law, the adoption
of new civil and penal codes and the new Law on Associations are
among the benchmarks of our legislative reforms.

In this context, gender equality is enshrined as a constitutional
principle with an emphasis on the obligation of the state to ensure
such equality. All forms of discrimination are banned. Legal and
constitutional guarantees on the right to association and assembly
have been reinforced. Limits that can be imposed on freedom of expression
have been reduced in line with the case law of the European Court
of Human Rights. Cultural and religious rights have also been upgraded.

The fight against torture and ill-treatment has been another
priority. The zero tolerance policy against torture has yielded
impressive results. We have put in place an effective legislative
and regulatory framework for combating torture. In the words of
the former President of the European Committee for the Prevention
of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, today
“it is difficult to find a Council of Europe member state with a
more advanced set of provisions in combating torture” than Turkey.
Human rights reforms in Turkey have been widely acclaimed by the
international community from Europe to the Middle East.

I should also point out that the reforms in Turkey did not
take place in the most favourable international environment. They
occurred at a time when there was a massive war in Iraq, as well
as threats of war and other conflicts in our neighbourhood. The
world economy was also passing through dire straits.

The ongoing transformation in Turkey corresponds to the aspirations
of the Turkish people. The cumulative impact of the democratic reforms
is that Turkey today is more pluralist, inclusive and tolerant.
The orderly conduct of parliamentary elections with a turnout of
almost 85% this summer reaffirms the commitment of the Turkish people
to democratic values.

The process is still under way. In a big country with a large
population, sweeping reforms are difficult uniformly to implement
overnight. The third pillar of our human rights policy, effective
implementation, still poses a few challenges. The new Turkish Government
has announced that it will give top priority to addressing those challenges.
The government has also announced its full commitment to ensure
full exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms by every individual.

The political reforms in Turkey were accompanied by sweeping
economic reforms, financial discipline and structural changes in
economy. Thus, economic growth and dynamism was substantially boosted.
Reforms have also led to the flourishing of cultural, literary and
artistic life in Turkey, and Istanbul’s designation as the cultural
capital of Europe for 2010 and Turkey’s designation as the focus
country of the international Frankfurt book fair in 2008 are indicators
of that development.

Turkey’s commitment to the reform process will go on. I trust
that the newly elected Turkish Parliament, which started its legislative
work only two days ago, will address those issues soon. In my speech
in the inaugural session of the Turkish Grand National Assembly,
I put a strong emphasis on the need for the continuation and deepening
of the reform process and its full implementation. I am confident
that the level of maturity achieved by the Turkish democracy will
enable us to tackle remaining human rights issues effectively.

A lively and wide debate has been taking place in Turkey on
the elaboration of an entirely new constitution or a comprehensive
amendment of the current one. This broad public debate is continuing
with the participation of all political parties, NGOs, professional
associations, universities, think tanks, intellectuals, the media
and citizens. I am confident that this debate will culminate in
improving Turkey’s constitutional norms in line with the requirements
of the 21st century.

Today, one of the major global challenges is the growing polarisation
of the international community along cultural and religious fault
lines. Extremists on both sides irresponsibly exploit this all over
the world. I believe that it is time for moderates to be as daring
and courageous as extremists.

Troubling events in recent years have made a meaningful dialogue
imperative for us all. A true dialogue among nations calls for respect
for, and understanding of, other cultures and civilisations. Our
basic principles of respect for human rights, democracy and rule
of law are universal. Therefore, those principles form a perfect basis
for such a true dialogue, because these values are products of mankind’s
collective progress and enlightenment.

Today, racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and discrimination
on religious or ethnic grounds are on the rise in many of our societies.
Migrant communities all over the world, in particular Muslims, are
specifically vulnerable to acts of prejudice, hatred and intolerance
in the post 11 September period. Combating discrimination and hatred
of all kinds requires strong political resolve and proactive action
everywhere. Similarly, we have to reject the identification of terrorism
and extremism with any particular religion or culture. The real
fault lines are not among religions or cultures, but among open
democracies and authoritarian regimes.

This is why Turkey co-sponsored, together with Spain, the
initiative on the alliance of civilisations under the auspices of
the United Nations, with a view to promoting dialogue and co-operation
among different cultures and religions. Turkey, given its historic
multicultural experience, its strong links with a vast geographical
area and its position as a home to many civilizations, is fully
aware that interaction among different cultures is necessary, possible,
fruitful and enriching. Turkey’s own experience is testimony that
secular democracy can flourish in a predominantly Muslim society.

The Council of Europe has been at the forefront of efforts
to foster unity in diversity. In this age of globalisation, ensuring
respect for unity in diversity has become a major challenge, simply
because globalisation renders diversity inevitable. The settlement
of anachronistic political conflicts in Europe and on its periphery
is a must for the future security, stability and welfare of Europe.

Cyprus remains the oldest unresolved conflict in Europe. The
overall settlement of this conflict could have been achieved during
the simultaneous referenda, which were held on the island on 24
April 2004, on the UN settlement plan. However, that chance was
missed due to the rejection of the plan by the Greek Cypriot side. Had
this opportunity been seized then Cyprus now could have been a reunified
island and represented as such in this Assembly. Isolations imposed
on the Turkish Cypriots would have been lifted. The Turkish and
Greek Cypriot property issues would have been resolved. The military
presence of Greece and Turkey would have reached an agreed solution.
A negotiated settlement in Cyprus would have transformed the eastern Mediterranean
into a hub of regional co-operation between Turkey, Greece and island
of Cyprus. Nevertheless, Turkey remains fully committed to a political
settlement: a settlement which will ensure the reunification of
the island under the auspices of the good offices mission of the
UN Secretary-General, based on the long-established UN parameters.

I recognise the presence of two elected representatives of
the Turkish Cypriot people among you. I seize this opportunity to
thank the Parliamentary Assembly for taking this modest but meaningful
step in helping to ease the political isolation of the Turkish Cypriots.

South Caucasus is another critical region burdened with persisting
unresolved conflicts. Its frozen conflicts continue to represent
a serious threat to peace and stability in the region. These conflicts
provide a major impediment to the region-wide co-operation initiatives.
They are also undermining prospects for prosperity of the future
generations. Therefore, the resolution of these conflicts constitutes
one of the most important and urgent issues in the South Caucasus
and beyond. Peaceful solutions should also meet the Azerbaijani
and Georgian legitimate concerns over their territorial integrity
and sovereignty. Turkey’s approach to the South Caucasus is shaped
by its genuine desire to establish comprehensive cooperation in
the region. The contribution of all three South Caucasian states
would be most preferable.

Turning to south-eastern Europe, the crisis unleashed by the
disintegration of former Yugoslavia is back to where it started
two decades ago, in Kosovo. Turkey has acted together with the international
community in the settlement of Kosovo’s final status. In south-eastern
Europe, our focus now must be not on where we were, but on where
we would like to head. The issues confronting the region call for
bilateral and multilateral co-operation among the Balkan states.

The Black Sea region draws growing attention due to its strategic
transportation and trade routes as well as its energy corridors.
All Black Sea littoral states are members of the Council of Europe.
That provides a common basis for enhanced co-operation. Almost twenty
years ago, Turkey pioneered the establishment of the Black Sea Economic
Cooperation Organization to help transform the Black Sea into a
region of co-operation and integrate it into the global economy.
Deeper economic cooperation may also eventually contribute to the resolution
of political issues in the region.

I know that your Assembly has been preoccupied with the developments
in Iraq. The territorial integrity, political unity and stability
of Iraq is of vital importance for the region and beyond. Turkey
contributes in every possible way to further the national reconciliation
and political dialogue process in Iraq. Arriving at such a political
deal will require fair representation of all political elements
and equitable sharing of the natural resources of the country. The
current situation in Iraq may not be promising. However, one should
not fall into the illusion that the current problems can be overcome
by the partition of Iraq. This would be the worst scenario for the
people of Iraq and the whole region. Therefore, nobody should look
for solutions alternative to respecting territorial and political
unity of Iraq. This will certainly further complicate the situation.

The situation in Iraq is also of direct relevance for Turkey’s
security due to the challenge it poses in combating terrorism. The
terrorist organisation PKK continues to use the north of Iraq as
a safe haven and to perpetrate violent acts across the boundary.
The need for international co-operation in combating terrorism is
today self-evident and compelling. The normative work carried out
by the Council of Europe in this field is commendable. It provides
the legal basis for enhanced European co-operation.

At this point, I would like to thank you, Mr President, for
your sincere and prompt reaction to the recent atrocious terrorist
attack by PKK against my people in the southeast town of Şırnak.
The victims of this attack were a dozen local civilians working
for an irrigation project. They were going back their home to break
their fast last Saturday afternoon.

Mr President, distinguished parliamentarians. Turkey, as a
founding member, believes that the Council of Europe continues to
play an essential, if not much publicised, role in Europe. Its standard-setting
work has been indispensable in achieving democratic stability in
the continent. The comprehensive system of conventions has created
a pan-European legal space with monitoring mechanisms. Independent
bodies such as the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights,
the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance and the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CPT) carry out very valuable work. The
Turkish authorities maintain excellent working relations with them.
Our reform process has benefited from their recommendations.

The European Court of Human Rights is a unique institution.
The case law that it has developed over the decades has expanded
individual liberties for the citizens of Europe. Turkey supports
the adoption of more effective working methods and additional resources
to the court. The entry into force of Protocol 14 without further
delay would be a first step in that direction. There is a large
grey area, however, where the protection mechanism provided by the
European Convention on Human Rights does not apply. This situation
can be corrected by the accession of the European Union to the Convention.
Thus, actions directly affecting lives of millions of Europeans
would be submitted to the scrutiny of the Court.

Today, Europe enjoys unprecedented democratic stability and
prosperity. It is the duty of our generation to take these achievements
forward by bringing to a peaceful end unresolved regional conflicts,
fostering intercultural dialogue, combating discrimination and terrorism
and promoting greater respect for human rights everywhere in the
continent. The Council of Europe and, in particular, the Parliamentary
Assembly can continue to make important contributions towards these
goals. As a former member of the Assembly, I call on you to take
this challenge.

We could
not have a better promoter of the Council of Europe and its values.
Let me express un grand merci for
your speech and for accepting questions from the Floor.

I remind members that questions must be limited to thirty
seconds and no more. Colleagues should ask questions and not make
speeches. The first question is by Mr de Puig on behalf of the Socialist
Group.

Mr DE PUIG (Spain) (interpretation)

thanked the President
of Turkey, whom he remembered as his former colleague on the Committee
on Culture, Science and Education, for his words. He asked what
steps were being taken by Turkey to adhere to the resolutions adopted
by the Assembly to protect the cultural and political rights of
Kurds living in Turkey.

Mr Gül, President of Turkey (interpretation)

reminded the Assembly that the aspiration of Turkey was to
become a member of the European Union and said that it was working
to fulfil its obligations in respect of its candidacy. Turkey was
a country of 70 million citizens and as such, had a richly diverse
population. This diversity was expressed in different ways, as could
be seen in the variety of books and papers that were published in
numerous languages in Turkey. Notable reforms had taken place during
the previous five to six years to remove former prohibitions on
expression.

Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium)

As rapporteur
in the committee on the monitoring of Turkey, I was impressed by
the changes and by the commitments that you made today to universal
standards. I was also impressed during the last elections, which
were held on 22 July. However, problems remain. In terms of the democratic
functioning of institutions, Turkey had the highest threshold –
10% – of the 47 member states. That affects minorities, including
the Kurdish minority. There are points to make about the position
of the army and the condition of women. I also believe that you
should go for more regional responsibility. What is your opinion of
that?

Mr Gül, President of Turkey (interpretation)

said that the 10% vote required to win representation in parliament
was a reality that would in time be abolished. There had been many
coalition governments formed of parties that had been unable to
provide political stability. The constitution aimed to promote fairness
as well as stability and this had been the main factor behind the
introduction of the 10% limit, but it was important to remember
that nominees could stand in an independent capacity without needing
to reach the limit. In the recent July heat, there had been a turnout
of almost 85%. That reaffirmed the commitment of the Turkish people
to democratic values. With the strengthening of the economy, it
was conceivable that the problems of the 10% limit would be overcome
and indeed there was agreement among political parties on this issue.

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary)

Mr President,
I join my colleagues in welcoming you back to this Assembly. I am
sure that you realise that liberals respect all individuals, whatever
their religion. You also know that we stand for a clear separation
between religion and state, which Atatürk established in your country.
When you were elected as President, there were worries in Europe
that the position might change. What is your response to those worries?
Perhaps you could highlight for us your vision for the separation
of religion and state in Turkey.

Mr Gül, President of Turkey (interpretation)

said that the main principle within Turkey of secular democracy
would be maintained with continued separation of the state and the
church. Concern should not exist with regard to the future direction
of Turkey since her aspiration to implement changes and enact laws
to enable membership of the European Union was transparent. Individual
liberties and rights would be guaranteed in the same way that they
were respected within the framework of the Council of Europe.

Mr MESSERSCHMIDT (Denmark)

In your speech
you talked about human rights but you did not mention freedom of
speech. I believe that, last year, your Prime Minister filed 59
complaints against journalists and authors for violating his rights
and freedoms. The courts have also shut down YouTube and a blog
on the Internet called Wordpress. That is a tremendous attack on
freedom of speech in Turkey. I would like you to comment on that
and on how you intend to change the situation.

Mr Gül, President of Turkey (interpretation)

said that freedom of speech was one of the major forms of
democracy and was exercised in Turkey as long as the statements
made were not insulting or in praise or support of violence. New regulations
and arrangements with regard to this issue were likely to be considered
by the Turkish Grand National Assembly in the near future.

People who were criticised had a right to be defended in court.
In Turkey, if one were insulted, it was possible that the culprit
would have to pay in court. The Turkish courts were independent.
This was particularly highlighted by the cases that had recently
been rejected – cases brought from all quarters, including some brought
by the Prime Minister of Turkey. That illustrated the true independence
of the courts.

Mr KOX (Netherlands)

May I ask
the former member of this Assembly, Mr Gül, whether he agrees that
the President of Turkey did not quite give a clear answer to the
question put by my colleague, Mr de Puig, about whether Turkey should
respect resolutions accepted by this Assembly with regard to Kurdish
rights? In Turkish, there must be a clear word for yes or no or
perhaps for “perhaps”. As a former parliamentarian, Mr President, please
give us a clear answer.

Mr Gül, President of Turkey (interpretation)

said he would give a clear answer to the question. Any person
who had Turkish citizenship was a free citizen. He acknowledged
there had been obstacles in the past. However, there had been reforms,
and freedom of speech was now a reality in Turkey. He invited members
of the Assembly to visit Turkey where they would see billboards,
newspapers and television programmes in Kurdish. He was proud that they
existed. Turkey was embracing the cultural diversity of its citizens.
He accepted these rights had not been available in the past, but
it was now possible for all citizens to enjoy this freedom. However,
he pointed out that there were laws in Turkey which prevented freedom
of speech where it promoted violence and terrorism.

Mr FOSS (Norway)

Mr President,
I take this opportunity to reiterate our obligations as Council
of Europe members to ensure full compliance with international law
on the treatment of prisoners. On previous occasions I have been
informed about the severe prison conditions of Mr Öcalan who is
in solitary confinement on the island of Imrali. Concerns have been
expressed, including from the CPT, about the long-term effects of Mr Öcalan’s
isolation. I would therefore like to ask you when and in what manner
the Turkish authorities intend to change the prison arrangements
for Mr Öcalan. Thank you.

Mr Gül, President of Turkey (interpretation)

said that the CPT regularly visited Turkey. There had been
no issues regarding the ill-treatment of prisoners. No views had
been expressed against Turkey’s procedure. Individuals found guilty
of a crime should expect to be punished; however, there was no violence
or torture within the prison system. All the regulations recently
enacted in Turkey went beyond those of any other member state of
the Assembly. He regretted that propaganda still existed, but was
keen to stress that no ill-treatment occurred against prisoners.
The European Court of Human Rights had made a judgment stating that
it did not find Turkey in breach of the European Convention on Human
Rights in this regard.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) (interpretation)

congratulated
her former colleague on his elevation to the status of President
of Turkey, but said that Europe was concerned that women in Turkey
were in danger of losing some of their human rights which they had
previously secured from the government. She also asked him to expand
his view on the new Turkish constitution.

Mr Gül, President of Turkey (interpretation)

said that, since 1934, women in Turkey had had the right to
vote and to be elected to parliament. There had been some inequalities
between the sexes, but these had now been eliminated. The number
of female members of parliament was at a record high. He would like
to see these increase further. Women in Turkey were actively taking
part in society.

He did not know what amendments would be proposed to the Turkish
Constitution. However, he was confident that a general consensus
could be achieved. Turkey needed a new constitution, and he believed
it was mature enough to establish this.

Mr BRANGER (France) (interpretation)

said that the
President of Turkey had stated in 2005 in an interview that no genocide had
occurred in Armenia and that the movement of some Armenians had
been voluntary. He expressed concern about the recent murders of
journalists in Turkey and asked when Turkey would step away from
this history of violence. He also asked whether the murders would
be fully investigated.

Mr Gül, President of Turkey (interpretation)

said it was sad that a journalist had been killed so recently.
However, the assassin had been immediately caught. He noted that
over 100 000 Turkish citizens had protested in the streets about
the murder, and he thought that this was worthy of note.

In 1915, Turkey was in the middle of the First World War.
Turkey had fought the war on four frontiers. Some citizens had been
provoked by neighbour states, and the government had intervened.
He accepted there had been tragedy during the war and many people
had suffered. However, he did not believe genocide had occurred.
Turkey was keen to establish a common history with Europe on this
issue. To this end, a Committee on Common History had been established.
It consisted of foreign and Turkish academics, and they had been given
access to the relevant top-secret Turkish files. Turkey was happy
to accept the considered view of the committee, and, until then,
would not accept unfair arguments.

Mr NAMI (Cyprus)

First, may I extend
a warm welcome to you, Mr President? During your visit to North Cyprus,
you addressed the Turkish-Cypriot legislative Assembly and said
that your vision for future co-operation in the region includes
a new partnership state in Cyprus – a vision that I fully share.
However, given the Greek-Cypriot attitude towards using their European
Union membership as leverage against Turkish-Cypriots, their decision
not to make a commitment to a time frame for solving the Cyprus
problem and their rejection of UN arbitration, do you think that
our vision is realistic, or is it under threat?

Mr Gül, President of Turkey (interpretation)

said there had been a referendum in 2004 on this issue. The
Turkish and Greek Cypriots had not voted as expected. He believed
that the realities of Cyprus had to be taken into account. Some member
countries of the European Union continued to raise the issue of
Cyprus with Turkey. Turkish Cypriots had done everything they could.
There had been regulations passed on this issue but they had not
been enforced. He recognised that, if Turkey did not fulfil its
promise to Cyprus, it would be unable to move forward. Cyprus could
be a new area of co-operation.

THE PRESIDENT

I call Mr Vis
on a point of order.

Mr VIS (United Kingdom)

Will we
receive written answers to the questions we have not reached?

THE PRESIDENT

No, that
is not usual. You can see from the order paper that we took the
questions according to the time at which they were tabled – that
is the order we followed. It is a pity that we do not have more
time. Some 38 members wanted to ask the President a question, and
this is not the first time that we have been in this situation.

I thank the President for being so frank, direct and transparent
in answering all the questions, which were open. That shows that
this house of dialogue and discussion has not taken away any questions
from the floor. I am very grateful, President Gül, that you were
prepared to answer all the questions that were asked. Thank you very
much once again, and may I wish you every success as a president
for all Turks and a promoter of the values of the Council of Europe?